One day, leaving their wives to shop, they wandered into a museum. There was a working model of our Solar System. After watching it for a while, the athiest said “Gee, that’s terrific. “I wonder who built it.”

To his surprise, the Christian said, “Nobody, it built itself.”
” Don’t be silly, how could it build itself?” said his friend, it must have had people to build it.”

“Well” said the Christian, “you athiests claim the real Solar System built itself without the aid of a Supreme Being we call God.” “Now you can see how impossible that is.”
AA Hoysted

Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

On the issue of Genesis and creation, I presume that neither of us are Hebrew scholars therefore it is appropriate that we consider the opinion of the experts.

Here is what Oxford Hebrew scholar, Professor James Barr (who is not a believer in YECism therefore he is a hostile witness) says about Genesis:

“… probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that:

a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience

b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story

c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark.”

Hugh Ross doesn’t believe any of these things.

Ewan McDonald, Victoria

On the issue of non-centrality equaling non-uniqueness, you are still using straw-man tactics here. My point never made such a claim and does not depend upon it. The BB theory does not “imply” non-centrality, it is an arbitrary assumption that lies at the foundation of BB cosmology. Such an assumption is naturalistic in origin as the inventors of the theory deliberately designed a hypothesis to explain cosmic evolution that did not assume the earth was near the centre of the universe (even though some observational data suggests that it is), because to assume otherwise would be a concession to what is implied by a biblical understanding of the cosmos.

I am not saying that because BB cosmology has the earth nowhere special that it is naturalistic, I am saying that it is naturalistic because it is first assumed that the earth is nowhere special and the theory is based upon this assumption. That the earth is nowhere special is not derived from BB cosmology, it is an assumption that is built into the theory.

The point about the fine-tuning of physical constants and laws of physics having noting whatsoever to do with BB cosmology, was that these are facts derived from the investigation of the physical creation, the truth of which does not depend upon the truth or otherwise of the BB theory. Your argument that the existence of finely tuned physical constants and laws of physics somehow supports the BB is circular.

Although the BB theory posits a beginning to the universe it does not necessarily posit a supernatural beginning. Here there is much similarity to naturalistic evolution which posits a beginning to life but not necessarily a supernatural one. The problem with both of these evolutionary theories (cosmological and biological) is that both are based upon naturalistic assumptions and each propose a version of history that is in direct contradiction to biblical history.

Ewan McDonald, Victoria

‘Nowhere did I say that the earth has to be considered central to be considered unique. What I did say is that the BB assumption of an unbounded universe is an arbitrary assumption based upon a naturalistic understanding of the non-uniqueness of earth (the Copernican principle). This is why I say that the BB theory is a naturalistic theory that attempts to explain the evolution of the universe in naturalistic terms.’

I can concede this Ewan but your argument did seem to go like this: The BB implies that the Earth is non-central to the universe, anything non-central to the universe can’t be special, therefore the BB implies that the Earth is not special. The problem is that the second premise in your argument is not true. All that is required is that there be fine-tuning from the moment of the BB. And this is clearly the case. But you don’t agree…

‘That the “physical constants and laws of physics show remarkable fine-tuning” is true but has noting whatsoever to do with BB cosmology.’

This is a rather remarkable statement. It is very inaccurate. Just take the space-energy density, as the likes of Ross, Craig and Robins have shown, it is fine tuned to a remakable degree that chance would have no ability to show. This fine-tuning would have to be present from the very beginning of the expansion to make this argument work.

‘Earlier you asked how a “theory that posits the origin of the universe [could] possibly be based upon naturalistic assumptions?” I have provided the evidence but you have yet to challenge it.’

Ewan I have gone back over your posts and the only evidence you gave that the BB is based on naturalistic premises was the one about the non-centred Earth (based on the unbounded universe). And I have dealt with that. But you are still yet to explain how a theory that posits the beginning of the universe would actually come from a naturalistic philosophy.

Damien Spillane

You state this…

“A young-earth view of Genesis, rather than being “isolate[d]……from other Bible passages” as you suggest, is actually more consistent with the whole of Scripture than are the old-earth compromise theories.”

I maintain that the YEC view of Gen 1, that of seeing them as literally 24hr periods can only be done so by isolating the chapter from the rest of scripture rather than letting scripture interpret itself. I can explain:

Gen 2 makes it very clear that the sixth day could not possibly have been 24 hrs. You must remember that it is here that the passage narrows in on the sixth day since it is after Adam was created but before Eve. The passage telescopes in on the Garden of Eden where God creates the Garden. The text said it hadn’t yet rained (hence we are under ordinary providence) which was the reason there were no plants. Verse 5-7 describe a time of year when it was dry which would make good sense of these passages, the wet season then comes and the plants grow under God’s providence. But if we are under ordinary providence which we clearly are, then it is going to take at least weeks for the correct season to come and the plants to grow through watering.

But this isn’t all that happens on the sixth day. God makes land animals and Adam, plants Garden and moves Adam there, gives him instructions, gives him the job to search for a helper, puts him to sleep and extracts a rib to make Eve. Then when Adam sees Eve he proclaims “this at last”. Clearly indicating a long time has passed. There is no chance this is all going to occur in 24 hours.

Another text is Heb 4 which says clearly, and even quotes the passage, that we are right now in God’s seventh day of rest. There is even a direct quote of Gen 2:2 about God’s seventh day of rest so that the reader doesn’t miss the point. AIG’s explanation of this is extremely weak and I can prove so if need be. Besides this in John 5:17 Jesus implicitly states that his Father is still working on His Sabbath just as Jesus is.

But I could go on. Ex 31:17 Moses states that God was “refreshed”, (yes this is what it states in the Hebrew). Now if you are going to take a very literal view of the Genesis work week then you will have to conclude that God required refreshing, but this would be absurd. So it leads us to conclude that the work week is analogous to ours (anthropomorphic is probably more accurate) but not literally the same. Humans have biological requirements of rest after 8-12hrs work where God does not. So the time periods will be significantly different. Notice also if you compare the “evening was morning was” of Gen 1 with Num 9:15-16 you will see that the latter defines the night as between evening and morning. And Ps 104:23 puts sleeping time in the night time. So this particular part of Gen 1 is referring to the rest of the labourer after a hard day’s work. Now does God need to rest? Of course not, hence we have analogy (anthropomorphism), not literalism.

Notice this all harmonises well with Ps 90:4 where it says that for God a day is as a thousand years. Thus we must not box God into human catergories and insist He work by human time periods.

So far from compromising scripture, the analogical day view and hence old earth view is more harmonious with the totality of scripture and hence more Biblically faithful. If you want more info on the above then read John Collins’ Science and Faith: Friends or Foes?

Damien Spillane

A young-earth view of Genesis, rather than being “isolate[d]……from other Bible passages” as you suggest, is actually more consistent with the whole of Scripture than are the old-earth compromise theories.

Nowhere did I say that the earth has to be considered central to be considered unique. What I did say is that the BB assumption of an unbounded universe is an arbitrary assumption based upon a naturalistic understanding of the non-uniqueness of earth (the Copernican principle). This is why I say that the BB theory is a naturalistic theory that attempts to explain the evolution of the universe in naturalistic terms.

Earlier you asked how a “theory that posits the origin of the universe [could] possibly be based upon naturalistic assumptions?” I have provided the evidence but you have yet to challenge it.

I still claim that evidence is accumulating against the BB theory. Even your example of distant galaxies is problematic for BB cosmology in that they appear too mature for their assumed BB age. (BTW, your statement that “distance is equal to time, so far away galaxies would be part of a younger universe”, is based upon assumption.)

That the “physical constants and laws of physics show remarkable fine-tuning” is true but has noting whatsoever to do with BB cosmology.

A further problem with incorporating BB cosmology into a Christian apologetic is that it leads adherents on to accepting the naturalistic interpretation of the geological history of the earth. Then that leads on to other compromises such as denying the global nature of Noah’s flood.

Ewan McDonald, Victoria

I realise this is getting way off topic and I hope Bill won’t mind me continuing down this path.

The fact that many scientists are not persuaded from BB to theism is not sufficient evidence against the theistic implications of BB. Many biologists don’t accept the obvious design in biological systems as evidence of God’s creative work yet would you deny the theistic implications of much of biology?

You have to deal with the fact that the BB spells the beginning of space, time, matter and energy and that only a transcendent Agent can create such. This is especially obvious if you couple the BB with the kalam cosmological argument as the likes of William Lane Craig have done.

‘The main reason the BB theory was initially ridiculed by the scientific community (the term ‘big-bang’ was initially coined by an opponent of the theory who sought to ridicule the idea) is because it challenged the then ruling paradigm.’

yes you are right that the BB challenged the ruling paradigm which was Newtonian in nature; pointing to the eternality of the universe and the infinite causal regress of natural processes. When space and time are finite then scientific cause and effect shuts down. This is what struck the naturalists as absurd because they couldn’t imagine a nonempirical cause for the universe.

‘The BB theory has since become the ruling paradigm in cosmology and now anyone who questions it’s validity is likewise ridiculed.’

That ridicule is probably warranted, just as those who believe in a flat earth deserve some degree of ridicule for refusing to believe the overwhelming evidence in defiance of their belief. As I stated there are multiple independent lines of evidence pointing to the origin of the universe 14 billion years ago. There is even direct obvervational evidence in the form of distant galaxies (distance is equal to time, so far away galaxies would be part of a younger universe) that obviously look more dense and closely packed which is exactly what the expanding BB would predict and not what a young earth Russell Humphries-like model would expect.

As I have stated before, the only reason for denying the myriads of evidence for the BB is as one under the dogma and narrowness of a particular interpretation of Gen 1 that isolates itself from other Bible passages, it is either that or atheistic naturalism.

‘One of those naturalistic and unbiblical assumptions foundational to the BB theory is that the earth is located nowhere special in the universe.’

What you are referring to is the Copernican principle; which states that we are in a nonuniqe position in the universe, this is stated against the background of a supposed belief that predecessors held Earth to be center of the solar system and hence special. The fallacy here of young earth reasoning (and the Copernican advocates) is that non-centeredness equals non-uniqueness. Of course it does not. And the fact that the universe doesn’t have a centre and hence we are not at it, does not imply that we are not special. This is a non-sequitur. So the BB is not unbiblical in this sense.

Actually the likes of Hugh Ross, William Lane Craig, Robin Collins etc have pointed out that there is enormous amounts of design built in to the BB to ensure that human beings would exist (for more info read Strobel’s Case for a Creator). The physical constants and laws of physics show remarkable fine-tuning. So not only does the BB show the existence of a transcendent causal agent but also that that cause is personal and intelligent on an immense scale. This is far from any concept of ‘unbiblical’.

Damien Spillane

If BB cosmology so clearly points to a creator then why are the bulk of it’s adherents in the scientific community still atheists?

The main reason the BB theory was initially ridiculed by the scientific community (the term ‘big-bang’ was initially coined by an opponent of the theory who sought to ridicule the idea) is because it challenged the then ruling paradigm. The BB theory has since become the ruling paradigm in cosmology and now anyone who questions it’s validity is likewise ridiculed.

One of those naturalistic and unbiblical assumptions foundational to the BB theory is that the earth is located nowhere special in the universe. This leads onto the next assumption that the universe has no centre and no edge (unbounded). This assumption is necessary to avoid the conclusion derived from red-shift observations that the earth is somewhere near the centre of the universe. However, from a biblical perspective it is perfectly logical to assume that the earth could be at or near the centre of the universe. This would be the simplest explanation for the observed uniformity of the red-shifts and avoids the need to make complicated and counter-intuitive assumptions about an unbounded cosmos.

Ewan McDonald, Victoria